Will he get a cent?

Share Button

Here are the articles about Cornwall I was talking about:

10 June 2010:  “Cornwall sex abuse victims reach settlement: CTV” & “Diocese. province settle with sex assault victims”

10 June 2010:  Cornwall sex abuse victims given large settlements

I have several comments on this, some regarding the reference to the settlements, and some regarding the reference to Steve Parisien.

(1)  The Settlements

I can not for the life of me conceive $70-100M in settlements.  To be honest I have not heard much of anything about this.  I did know that canon lawyer Jacques Leduc settled with two of his “alleged” victims fairly recently – and it wasn’t big money by a long shot.  But I don’t believe the diocese was involved in those.  That was out of Leduc’s own pocket.  The word on the streets is that he told them if they didn’t take what he offered he would declare bankruptcy and then there wouldn’t be a penny!

Bishop Durocher says the last of 16 lawsuits was settled a few weeks ago.  I know there was legal action related to the following:

Father Lucien Lussier

Father Charles MacDonald

Father Carl Stone

Father Luc Meunier

Father Gilles Deslaurier

Who else?  Any whose names have not been out in the public domain?

Bishop Durocher says none of the settlement involved confidentiality agreements.  Can anyone fill in any details?  Does anyone know the names of other clergy who were sued?  If yes,  send an email(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)  or post a comment to help fill in the gaps here.  Remember, according to the bishop it’s no secret.  I wonder why Durocher didn’t just spell out the names?!

Anyway, 16 actions amounting to $1.2M.  That probably  means, after legal fees are deducted, an average of  $50,000 or less/victim.

Peanuts really.  That has been fairly standard for Cornwall victims, be it in legal action related to the Church or correctional services.

My question then  is, with those sort of settlements how does the overall  estimate wind up at around $70M?  I really can not conceive those numbers.  Even counting all of the lawsuits related to probation and parole (i.e., Ken Seguin) I am still nowhere near that figure.

What am I missing here?  What don’t I know that I perhaps should know?

Has one or perhaps more victims reached a multi-million-dollar settlement?

I think that would be all over Cornwall in no time and I would hear about it. I truly do.

Anyway, if anyone can enlighten us all on these figures it would be greatly appreciated.

(2)  Steve Parisien

The CTV article reads in part

Although Parisien hasn’t received a settlement, he is hoping to get some compensation for his experience.

He says while no amount of money will change his life, it will help validate what he went through.

Steve Parisien hasn’t launched lawsuit so it’s quite impossible for him to receive a settlement.  What Steve has  been trying to do is recoup some of the losseshe  incurred from the Cornwall Public Inquiry -specifically  the costs incurred after Justice Normand Glaude tossed this victim out of the the Weave Shed and straight to the wolves.   Glaude could have allowed Steve to take the stand on the spot to explain his side of the story.  But, no.  Glaude decided that “the proper authorities”  (read police)  should be called in.  That’s the way victims were dealt with at the Weave Shed.

Considering how long it takes these days to have a molester charged, relatively speaking  it took an instant for police to arrest Steve in broad daylight – right out there on the street he was handcuffed and frisked and tossed into the back seat of a cruiser like a common criminal.  Charged with obstruction of justice.  hey don;t do that to the average molester.  They did it to Steve.

The charges were eventually, properly and mercifully dismissed at trial, but it cost money for Steve to retain a lawyer, and he lost income through time off work and the inability to get a job while a serious criminal charge was hanging round  his neck.

 It was a rough year for Steve.  His interest in the Cornwall Public Inquiry and concern for fellow victims cost him dearly, both emotionally and financially.  I think it is fair to say he has yet to recover from it. I think too that it is fair to say that the charges and arrest and trial have impacted him almost as deeply as did his sexual abuse.  It was truly the ultimate re-victimization of a victim – at the Cornwall Public Inquiry no less.

So, yes Steve would of course like to see a few dollars, but, and I could be wrong,  I think what he’s been looking for primarily is both an apology from the commissioner and commission counsel and reimbursement of his expenses.  Several thousand dollars for sure.  He tried writing to Glaude but that went nowhere.

Will Steve get a cent?  or an apology?

 The AG should be announcing the dispersal of funds any day now.  With all the cash cows which are apt to be flying about will he have the decency to reimburse Steve?

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(contact me at cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

looking for first and foremost is

This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Bishops, Canada, Circling the wagons, Non clerical RC sexual predators, probation, Scandal. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Will he get a cent?

  1. prima facie says:

    If the “mainstream-lapdog media” wants to interview recipients (…whom I would assume are; “alleged victims”) about the the “settlements”, let the “mainstream-lapdog media” do their job-simple!! If the “recipients” are not constrained by “gag-orders”, “publication bans”, “non-disclosure”, “confidentiality” stipulations, or similar, then “I” or the “mainstream-lapdog media” can easily contact the records department at the court wherein the original litigations were commenced (yes, just down the street.)
    LAY the “onus” on the “mainstream-lapdog media” or other “freelance journalists” for researching and disseminating this story, or “they” will forever blame the “Guzzo’s”, “Parisien’s”, etc., for not providing accurate information or for providing partial or misleading information that will most definitely lead to widespread misininterpretation. (Me…I go to the “source”…”the horses mouth”-so to speak.) No in between….and who am I, just a simple “peon”.
    Even the particulars of “settlements that were mediated” in out-of-court settings, must be filed in the court wherein the litigation (i.e.)”Statement of Claim” was filed/initiated.

    “I”, the “mainstream-lapdog media”, as “anyone”, could ask the clerk in the records department, to allow me or anyone to view “the file”.
    All the specifics and names are there and “the file” is in the “public domain” for perusal at little or no cost, despite anyone trying to convince you of the contrary.(*note* that is of course, if the records department, the “Maitre-Case Manager” and others are following the “laws, rules, procedures, fidicuary responsibilities and similar) and you don’t need a lawyer to find out if there is misrepresentation.
    I believe, in some instances, for various unclear reasons, “the mainstream-lapdog media” will not do “the job to the fullest”. Instead, the “mainstream-lapdog media” will slither around communities/sending emails, contacting websites, attempting to get one “John Doe” to contact another “John Doe” or “Mary Smith” to eventually get the word to a “recipient or otherwise”, implying that “the mainstream-lapdog media”, would be willing to do an interview, if they will contact the “mainstream-lapdog media”. (How oppressive, controlling and scary).

    Such a simple task, made so difficult. Is this a result of ignorance or fear? Circumventing responsibility?
    Unfortunately, there are so many people willing to “blab” on, who have little or no factual information.

    As always, watch for wording, which can be very intimidating. I recall one “proceeding” I was involved in (1981) wherein I was advised I could talk about “my settlement”, ex.)”I got money and I am moving on with my life, etc., etc…..” (happy thoughts….happy thoughts etc). Well the particulars were “gagged” and are still “gagged” today.
    Of course the old saying goes, “If I knew then what I know today”.(You see, the defendants didn’t want 20,000 other plaintiffs to come forward with similar info.) NEVER AGAIN.

    Oh, if any of the “mainstream lapgod media” want to learn how to conduct “research” to “discover the facts”, and be “journalists”, contact me.
    My fee, for you guys is $500.00/hour and $1000.00 additionally per diem. (25k retainer).

  2. Prima Facie says:

    Fair and Balanced Debate?

    …..and furthermore, as I recall, in a mediation I was once “party to”, the facts leading to the filing of civil litigation were never explored or dealt with.
    After intense convincing, “I chose” to mediate to “finality” as opposed to returning to the court room-“trial” route. (remember the words “After intense convincing, I chose”.

    Among other things, at the time, it was explained to me, that the mediation would deal with the monetary and/or other benefits “on the table”. The mediation would not be designed to prove or disprove the allegations original outlined and detailed in any formal complaint or “Statement of Claim”. In fact, there would be no specific “admission of guilt” by anyone; simply a declaration that “the industry” might have caused me hardship and “the industry” would help me with an award of monies.

    As previously mentioned, I still cannot legally discuss the facts of this matter either, because the facts I/we complained about originally have never been proven or disproven or similar. However, I discuss these issues for therapeutic reasons, well knowing in advance “John Doe or Mary Smith” have no idea what I am talking about.

    Also, which I find is becoming more and more common in Canada is the fact that there are very few if any, articulate, informed, educated, professionals or other elitists offering critical perspectives of these types of settlements. There must be some professional backlash or opposition from professionals or elitists.
    Does everyone think the same way or are there too many shared bar-tabs at “The Society”?

    Do the “mainstream-lapdog media” only have the ostracized, labelled, so-called “conspiracy theorists” or “disgraced and seemingly brain-dead” political backbenchers to squeeze, for a so-called “useful idiot” sound-byte? I mean really! (social provocateur?)

    My, my, my…are we already there……. “movers and shakers” are all of one-mind….very scary!
    “For The Greater Good” of course.

  3. Reality Checker says:

    HERE DO THE MATH…..(from CTV 2005)…..

    Vatican named in Cornwall sex abuse lawsuit
    Updated: Mon Jul. 04 2005 04:30:16

    Canadian Press

    TORONTO — The Vatican and the College of Cardinals are among those named in a sex abuse lawsuit to be filed this week in Cornwall, Ont.

    LeDroit Beckett, a London, Ont.-based law firm, is filing the suit on behalf of Andrien St. Louis, who claims he was abused by a Roman Catholic bishop and priest.

    Retired bishop Eugene LaRocque, who lives in Windsor, Ont., and a deceased priest, Donald Scott, are named in the suit.

    The Holy See, the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic of Toronto, the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall and the Diocese of London are accused of negligence and vicarious liability of their employees.

    None of these allegations have been proven in court.

    Ledroit has scheduled a news conference for Tuesday in Cornwall to announce the new suits.

    The Alexandria-Cornwall diocese already faces two $3.1-million lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by a former priest.

    The lawsuits name current Bishop Paul-Andre Durocher and his predecessor, LaRocque, for alleged negligence involving two plaintiffs, Albert Lalonde and Robert Renshaw.

    Lalonde and Renshaw both claim they were victimized by Rev. Charles MacDonald, 72, who now lives in the eastern Ontario community of Glen Robertson.

    A Cornwall-area lawyer, Jacques Leduc, also faces a $3.1-million lawsuit from plaintiff Stuart Labelle.

    Last month, Ledroit announced 10 other civil lawsuits against clergy, school boards and the government.

    Alleged abuse victims Ron and George Glaude also came forward saying they are the nephews of the judge leading an inquiry into long-standing allegations of sexual abuse in Cornwall.

    Judge Normand Glaude has said he doesn’t know if the two men are part of his extended family, but that the issue shouldn’t be dealt with until public hearings begin, likely at the start of next year.

    Allegations that a sex abuse ring ran for 50 years were investigated by police in the city for years under the name Project Truth.

    They laid 114 charges against 15 high-profile men in the 1990s, but the courts ultimately convicted just one man who had no connection to the alleged sex ring.

    At the end of the investigation, police said they found no evidence of a pedophile ring in the city.

    The Ontario government has said it hopes a public inquiry will bring peace to the divided community.

    Alain Seguin, co-ordinator of the group Coalition for Action Cornwall, estimates 1,000 men have been sexually abused in the city since the 1950s.

    An affidavit sworn in 1996 by Ron Leroux, a 58-year-old painting contractor who lived in Cornwall but is now based in Maine, says as a boy he witnessed a “clan” of pedophiles abusing young boys in a variety of ways.

    Leroux, who claimed he was abused by several priests, said the “ritual went on on a weekly basis.”

  4. Reality Checker says:

    That’s 6 suits that I count in the 2005 article….

  5. Sylvia says:

    You`ve lost me Reality Checker. They say they were launching ten more. And with the six you cont that`s 16. But I can`t see the six you see.

    But as I was trying to count them out I got thinking that the diocesan line on a Laorcque lawsuit was that he, Larocque, was exonerated. And I got to thinking too that that the very public `exoneration`came some time after Bishop Paul Andre Durocher saw fit to oversee lawsuits launched against both the `alleged`victim Adrian St. Louis and the law firm representing him, Ledroit Beckett! And then Durocher announced the exoneration of Larocque.

    Durocher had no problem with the victim`s privacy concerns in making that announcement, did he?

    And he was quick to conclude that the victim statement: “I do not hold (Larocque) responsible whatsoever for the abuse I have suffered” meant exoneration.

    As I said back then:

    Where is the exoneration? That doesn’t say “I made a mistake, ” or “He didn’t do it.” The victim simply says he will not hold Larocque responsible.

    I am guessing the diocese has run the “alleged” victim in circles and it is unfortunately simpler to bow out.

    Here are the documents related to the suits filed by Durocher/the diocese/Larocque. Five years downstream and with all the talk of $$$$ and settlements they make an intersting and informative read:

    26 September 2005: David Sheriff Scott (lawyer for Bishop Eugene Larocque) letter to Paul M. Ledroit objecting to Ledroit Beckett’s continued involvement in the Adrien St. Louis legal action against Bishop Larocque. (St. Louis alleges he was sexually abused by Larocque.)

    07 September 2005: (Statement of Claim) Eugene Phillip Larocque initiates legal action against his alleged victim Adrien St. Louis and the law firm representing St. Louis, Paul Ledroit and Ledroit Beckett Statement of Claim

    19 July 2005: (Notice of Libel)Bishop Eugene Philip Larocque to his alleged victim Adrien St. Louis and the law firm representing St. Louis, Paul Ledroit, Ledroit Beckett.

    Prima Facie, you`re right on. In Ottawa it costs $10 to get a file which is still in the upstairs offices of the courthouse, and $20 to get one which has been archived. Not a fortune. Anyone, media included, can pay to see them. They are public documents. That`s how I got the files related to the diocesan et al -initiated lawsuits above.

    That got me checking for the docoments

  6. AbsentObserver says:

    One of the most ridiculous things to happen in relation to the Cornwall Public Inquiry was the charging and trial of Steve Parisien. Even the gentleman who spoke about the telephone conversation during testimony, Albert Roy, later said he thought it was a travesty of justice to have Parisien charged and tried. The judge in Steve’s trial seemed to repeatedly shake his head as to why this charge of obstruction of justice had been laid in the first place and couldn’t seem to figure out for the life of him why it was brought before him. Although the Crown tried to put evidence of obstruction before the court, it was obvious to anyone who sat in that courtroom during that trial even some of the Crown attorneys seemed perplexed as to what they were doing in that room. Too bad there wasn’t a side-by-side analysis done by any members of the media as to what happened when an allegation of historical child sexual abuse was leveled against a priest and what happened when an allegation of obstruction of justice was made against Steve. Were any priests or teachers or lawyers handcuffed in their own driveways and tossed in the back of a police car? Were any of them held in custody for any period of time? Were any of them forced to hire a lawyer and sit through a trial that even the judge knew was bogus? Steve deserves not only to be compensated for any money he either paid to defend himself (which he was successful at and was found to have done nothing wrong) … he deserves a public apology from the Attorney General and, in particular, Commissioner Normand Glaude, for one of the most head-scratching events to happen during the course of the inquiry. The only bigger farce was the charging and jailing of Perry Dunlop … an act which should cause the entire justice and law enforcement community in this province and throughout this country to collectively hang their heads in shame.

  7. Reality Checker says:

    Out of interest I came across a situation (news report)happening in Quebec related to a former Quebec Justice Minister (Bellemare) doing some whistleblowing and calling for a provincial inquiry/commission on the hiring of provincial judges. An inquiry/commission is starting and Bellemare is publically stating he WILL NOT PARTICIPATE because he doesn’t want to “play games” in what he’s calling a very biased commission.
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/06/15/bastarache-commission.html

    SOUND FAMILIAR????

    Hey Perry and Helen – do you think this fella will spend seven months in jail???

    I still want to know WHY Perry Dunlop was targeted – where’s the apology and when’s it coming???

  8. John says:

    To Absent Observer:

    The following quotes are from the blog that you wrote on May 25th (less than one month ago)………….

    “It doesn’t give me great hope for the future if you people are passing along to your children and grandchildren such blanket cynicism.”

    “I know it’s much more convenient for you all to consistently vilify the commissioner and everyone who wasn’t listed as a victim or an alleged victim at that inquiry.”

    “Are you all really that jaded? If so, I’m sad for you all.”

    You can recheck these quotes for youself to confirm that they are indeed your words.

    Below are your words from the blog that wrote on this thread just a few days ago…………

    “he (Steve) deserves a public apology from the Attorney General and, in particular, Commissioner Normand Glaude, for one of the most head-scratching events to happen during the course of the inquiry. The only bigger farce was the charging and jailing of Perry Dunlop … an act which should cause the entire justice and law enforcement community in this province and throughout this country to collectively hang their heads in shame.”

    You called some on here..”jaded”..”cynics”..and “disillusioned” with our justice system, yet in your blog you villify the very system of justice that you say we are “jaded………” about. I understand that we can all have a change of heart and mind, but your blog was written well after all of the events that you say that you are “jaded” about transpired.

    I am willing to listen, if you care to explain.

    John Mac Donald

  9. AbsentObserver says:

    It’s very simple, John. Some things were done right at that inquiry and some things were done wrong. I do not agree with those who suggest nothing good came of it … but I also believe mistakes were made and wrong turns were taken.
    In the case of some witnesses and some evidence heard, I felt the commission has been unfairly criticized. In the case of other witnesses and other evidence, the commission failed miserably in handling things properly.
    So, it’s that simple. Do I think the inquiry was a total sham? No. Do I think the commissioner and commission counsel were inept? No. Do I think the entire team made mistakes? Yes. Do I think some witnesses were treated fairly? Yes. Do I think some witnesses were treated unfairly? Yes. It was four years long. In my opinion, some things were done right and some things were done wrong.
    In using the terms “jaded” “cynics” and “disillusioned” I was referring to those who refuse to find any good in the four years worth of work at the Weave Shed. I have spoken to many victims and alleged victims, as I’m sure you have as well. Some will tell you the inquiry was an ineffective, self-serving, three-ring circus. Others will tell you it did wonders for their healing and efforts to move forward in their lives.
    That’s all I’m saying, John. Some things were good. Some things were bad. Simple as that.

  10. John says:

    Again to Absent Observer…..Now that you have responded to my blog; I a wondering if you could answer a few questions for me on this forum?

    John

  11. AbsentObserver says:

    I don’t mind answering questions from anyone, John. The only questions I won’t answer are any which deal with my identity or my connection to the inquiry. I have always respected the rights of others to remain nameless on this site and I hope you would be willing to afford me a similar respect.
    If that’s okay with you then go ahead. Ask away.

    🙂

  12. John says:

    Absent Observer you can keep your identity and connections to yourself…..it is your thoughts and stance that I am interested in. You say on these blogs that you feel sorry for some of us on here that we have such blanket cynisism for our justice system.I can only speak for myself as to how I came by this stance, but I understand where others may have become jaded and disillusioned. Maybe you can help me out to see if my thinking is wrong as to how we got here.

    My questions:

    1)…..Does Perry have the right to feel jaded by our whole justice system?

    2)…..Does Steve have the right to feel jaded by our whole justice system?

    3)…..By extension do Perry and Steve’s families have that same right, as they saw their Father, brother and son be dragged through an unfair process?

    4)…..Can that right spread to those close to Steve and Perry?

    5)…..Does David Silmser have the right to feel jaded by the whole process? (In testimony by OPP, they admitted to going after Dave for attempted extortion.)

    6)…..Can you give me ANY example of fair justice within the realm of where I come from to allow me to be able to lift the corner of that “blanket cynicism” and allow some light back in?

    Answer these questions for me to begin, and I am certain that there will be other questions that follow, but at least we are having an open dialogue. I am always willing to learn and expand my points of view. I did not begin this process to walk away feeling “jaded, disillussioned and cynical”. I stepped up looking for justice for crimes committed.

    So please start by answering those six questions for me, point by point.

    John Mac Donald

  13. AbsentObserver says:

    John,

    I would love to have a dialogue with you about this. I’m not sure it’s fair to hijack Sylvia’s forum, though. How about if we did it over email? I think we could have some very good discussions.

    Email me anytime at elliepinsent@yahoo.com

  14. prima facie says:

    Gee, I thought this was interesting and we could all learn something about it…..that’s one of the things blogs do; ie) help inform people.
    I certainly do not think Sylvia’s site could be hijacked by you two. This type of open debate is what is needed. All too often open debate, disclosure and facts have been suppressed.
    It’s really too bad you two are opting out and running for shelter.

  15. prima facie says:

    Complete turnaround, perceived deceit, implied misrepresentations ex)”an Absent Observer but not really an Absent Observer, openly disclosing the need to keep in the shadows, not saying what the relationship to the public inquiry is, etc., etc. Now, trying to lead a victim/survivor into seclusion to talk in confidentiality, while rationalizing the behaviour with, “we don’t want to hijack the website.” How typical!! What this implies is, that readers will know who a person is if they disclose their name and but not disclosing their role in the inquiry, they are actually admitting to being party to the inquiry. Again I say, obviously anything but an “Absent Observer”.
    Any wonder why people have suspicions?
    I see this as typical controlling, abusive behaviours to control disclosure/the message and an attempt at POWER!

  16. AbsentObserver says:

    Oh Prima Facie … suspicious at every turn.
    I’m not running for cover. I am genuinely interested in having a discussion with John … I just didn’t know if it was appropriate for the two of us to carry out a back-and-forth conversation in a forum which should be free for all to comment on and observe.
    And for the record, John didn’t opt out … he didn’t run for shelter … he hasn’t even responded to my post about taking this to email, so how can you accuse him of either of those things?

  17. Sylvia says:

    AbsentObserver & John, feel free to debate. That’s why posts are open to comment. Everyone can learn from your exchanges.

    Go for it 🙂

  18. John says:

    Thank you for that Sylvia, as you say, we can all learn. It’s up to you now Absent Observer. Answer away.

    John

  19. AbsentObserver says:

    There are less than six people closer to the inquiry than I was. Why do I refer to myself as an Absent Observer? Because I was not directly involved. I was an outsider. I was not an employee. I was not paid. I was not “one of them.” But I was there. Every single minute of every single day. I was “absent” from the commission in that I played no role of significance. I need not defend myself or my choices any more than anyone else … that’s the truth. If you don’t like my approach, so be it. I do not live a life meant to satisfy your ideas of right and wrong. I will talk about what I want to talk about when I want to talk about it and with whom I want to talk about it. If anyone has an issue with that, I couldn’t care less. Try to strong-arm someone else. I ain’t falling for it. In the meantime, John, if you want to have a reasonable, intelligent, fair discussion, you have my email address. Write me. I’m here.

  20. prima facie says:

    ….so “Absent Observer” wants us to listen to something like this; “I was absent because I was in the same room with all the commission people every single minute of every single day, but I didn’t really have an official role…I actually sat eight feet away from everyone, which is one foot beyond the mark wherein “Absent”, from “Absent Observers” perspective, would have to be re-defined”, and, “I observed, but I looked with one eye open and one eye closed, every third minute on odd days and every fifth minute on even days, unless of course, the fourth day fell on a statutory holiday….in which a re-count of days would be necessary from the beginning.”
    Listen “Absent Observer”, you blind-following, butt kissing, pick the winning side, gutless idiot….”YOU’VE BEEN OUTED”. Slither back under the log you came from….or is it that you’re feeling “used” by “them” and are looking for new “sandbox buddies”.
    Have you read some of your posts over the last several months..do a search on “Absent Observer” on Sylvia’s site….
    Your type make me puke. You’ve been outed!

  21. John says:

    Does this mean that you won’t answer my questions here?

  22. John says:

    I just want to be clear on a point here………in post #13 on this thread Absent Observer, your concern does not seem to be you and I debating and dialoguing here. Your concern seems to be the hijacking of Sylvia’s site. Sylvia gave her go ahead to dialogue here.

  23. John says:

    Absent Observer…….Below is you post above…..I have read it and re-read it many times. I cannot get clear who it is that you are talking to; Sylvia or me?

    There are less than six people closer to the inquiry than I was. Why do I refer to myself as an Absent Observer? Because I was not directly involved. I was an outsider. I was not an employee. I was not paid. I was not “one of them.” But I was there. Every single minute of every single day. I was “absent” from the commission in that I played no role of significance. I need not defend myself or my choices any more than anyone else … that’s the truth. If you don’t like my approach, so be it. I do not live a life meant to satisfy your ideas of right and wrong. I will talk about what I want to talk about when I want to talk about it and with whom I want to talk about it. If anyone has an issue with that, I couldn’t care less. Try to strong-arm someone else. I ain’t falling for it. In the meantime, John, if you want to have a reasonable, intelligent, fair discussion, you have my email address. Write me. I’m here.

  24. Angel Eyes says:

    I have watched this particular dialogue unfold with great interest. It seems that Absent Observer is well-versed in the fine art of “double speak”. Quite Orwellian. The only thing I can judge here is MY reaction to what I’ve witnessed. When something doesn’t make sense, I HAVE to dig a bit deeper … always striving for truth and curious about intention. So, I wonder, Absent Observer … if you had no attachment to the inquiry, what would motivate you to sit there “every single minute of every single day”, and bear witness to the unfolding of the events? Is the term “absent” more indicative of the compassion you lack for humankind? To observe with detachment what those victims endured and continue to live each moment of every day … it is VERY real and VERY real in how it has impacted them. What is your payoff here? Who are you supporting? Seems that YOU’RE the one who is “strong=arming”. As well, if your choice is to remain ANONYMOUS, why would you publish an email address in this forum? Finally, I chuckled at your choice of throwing in the word “ain’t” in posting #19. Most of your dialogue thus far has been quite eloquent. Did you decide to use this word as a means to tailor your message to YOUR perception of the audience you are addressing here?

  25. AbsentObserver says:

    In the post which contained … “If you don’t like my approach, so be it. I do not live a life meant to satisfy your ideas of right and wrong. I will talk about what I want to talk about when I want to talk about it and with whom I want to talk about it. If anyone has an issue with that, I couldn’t care less. Try to strong-arm someone else. I ain’t falling for it.” … I was replying to comments made by Prima Facie. I should have made that clear.

    I have no problem with continuing our dialogue on this forum, John. If Sylvia is okay with it, so am I. It’s unfortunate it will be peppered with commentary from some other posters which will consist mainly of personal attacks on me, which is funny since nobody here knows anything about me on a personal level.

    Here are my answers to the questions you posted originally, John. As always, they are strictly my opinions.

    1. Yes.
    2. Yes.
    3. Yes.
    4. Yes.
    5. Yes.
    6. Fair justice is a relative term. What seems fair to one person may seem unfair to another. Certainly there are cases when the outcome is blatantly and inarguably unfair … child molesters set free, murderers pardoned, thieves unpunished … but how would we settle on whether, say, the sentence handed down to a criminal in a court is a fair one? Let’s say a man is convicted of manslaughter and he had no criminal record and expressed deep remorse and taken full responsibility for his actions. He pleaded guilty, did not force the family of the victim to have to sit through a lengthy and difficult trial and apologized to them several times. Let’s say during the sentencing hearing, the Crown attorney tells the court the range of sentencing for this sort of crime is between 14 and 18 years in prison. The Crown wants 18 years … the defence suggests 14 is more appropriate. The judge splits the difference and sentences the man to 16 in jail. Is that fair? From a legal perspective, yes. It’s within the range of sentencing and it’s halfway between what the Crown and defence had each asked for. But what about for the family members and friends of the victim? They have lost their loved one forever … at least the convict’s family gets to see and hear from him periodically while he’s in prison and they can at least take some comfort he’s still alive and they will likely see him again after his sentence is complete. For the victim’s family, 16 years doesn’t seem like a fair trade for the life of their loved one. Sixty years wouldn’t seem fair. To them. But to an independent observer who has no emotional attachment to the case, 16 years seems fair.
    So, I say to you, what’s fair justice? I can tell you about cases where child molesters were sent to prison for periods of time. What’s fair? If there were five victims, what’s a fair sentence? Ten years? Twenty-five years? Fifty years?

  26. prima facie says:

    Let’s get this straight. (Psych 101 and a couple of other ones):It is my belief all people have a number of “personal schemas” ex.)father, mate, husband, son, lawyer or other profession, activist, graduate, person in flight/fight, etc., etc., consequently forming one schema (personality and similar). Fortunately or otherwise, we get to interact with each others “multiple schemas”.
    Furthermore, with a person, different situations will elicit different “schemas”, behaviours and related.

    People can only act and react based on what they interpret and what emotion they experience when they “see, hear, smell, touch, or taste”=”input-stimulus received”.

    In this particular forum, I would suggest very few, if any of us, know each other in a “personal level” (as defined).

    Therefore, for our/my own protection, information, assessment, reaction, thought process, etc., etc., as I mentioned above, we/I make personal judgements on the information available that I/we “receive-input”.
    A person could very easily be a “blind following, butt kissing, pick the winning side, gutless idiot” in one environment and be a heroic and generous philanthropist, loved by the world. (I know several).

    Perhaps this is what you wish readers knew about you….”the complete person”.
    I would hope I/others do not form a conclusive opinion of someone solely based on the interractions or otherwise expressed on this website or anywhere.

    It may come as surprise to you that two of my very best friends are lawyers and I interract with many other “pearheads”. We play sports together, visit each others homes and cottages, bar-b-que together, and the same. We enjoy each other on a “personal-social level”.

    “Absent Observer”, because I believe you are an informed and educated person, I believe you understand this too and that you are looking for sympathy from readers who are not informed about human behaviour-cognitive development and the same. I see you as being very confused.

  27. AbsentObserver says:

    Anyone who would refer to another person in the way you referred to me, Prima Facie (JB) … “blind-following, butt-kissing, pick-the-winning-side, gutless idiot” … is not the type of person I would respect. Call me jaded, call me cynical, call me heartless … that’s fine. Why you feel the need to resort to playground-level name-calling is beyond me.

  28. AbsentObserver says:

    And I’ve been outed, have I? Really, Prima Facie? Alright. Be honest. Don’t run for shelter. Tell us all. Who am I?

  29. prima facie says:

    Based on our interactions on this site and your posts, I would never want or expect your respect. You certainly do not have mine….and that’s just fine. My life doesn’t end with the fact that you do not respect me….join the group, ha!

    I am not interested in building respect or collecting friends; I am interested in the facts/truth as always, being disclosed. My position has never changed or altered since 1989 or before….everyone who know’s me, know’s exactly what to expect from me; how about you. Can you say the same?

    Interesting though “Absent Observer”….as I see it, so typically of a controlling, power-seeking abusive personality. Are you an alleged abuser/alleged victim or are you still unsure? It is my opinion, the presenting signs-symptoms could suggest one or more of the above diagnosis….or maybe you just hung out at “The Shed” for too long.
    Pattern: Recently, you change positions as John noticed, but in fact the “pattern” is consistent since your opening post-months and months ago; ie)”indifferent, pro allegations of cover-up, counter cover-up, then a couple of days ago, you attempt to slip John into the backrooms to circumvent open disclosure and seemingly “silence him”, then in the past couple of days, you present a convoluted rationalization, then you attempt to demonstrate “power” by implying “you know who I am”…to scare me?” Really! I mean REALLY!!

    As far as I see it, you are definitely a pathetic loser.
    So typically….you have clearly shown yourself…..Ha! Ha! Ha!
    In post 27 you also put the initial “JB” beside “prima facie”. Ha!! Ha!! Ha!! Hold it now, let me stop shaking. Ha! Ha! Ha! Does “JB” stand happen to stand for “James Bateman”? Ha! Ha! Ha! I am scared!! Hold it…I think I just soiled my shorts!!!Ha! Ha! Ha! Yes me, “James P. Bateman” a.k.a. “prima facie”. You pathetic loser!

    The gang has left town and you are feeling “left out or alone or “left behind” maybe”…..really. You are outed!!

    And yes, at this “stage” of the game, for various reasons, which I am certain you are aware of (being at the Shed every minute of every day), wouldn’t it be great to “get John and his cronies” tied down and under control, so-to-speak. Really, isn’t he one of the “outstanding cases” to be closed….and yes, John does tend to “speak out”.
    I suspect you seriously underestimate John’s awareness, healthiness, abilities or the successes he has achieved in his personal recovery, despite the fact you were at the “Shed” every minute, every day for four years.

    No coincidences here!

    By-the-way, I have no interest in disclosing your name or your initials; you can do that.

    On the other hand,
    Sincerely yours,
    James P. Bateman a.k.a. “Prima Facie” (not the first time I have shared this on Sylvia’s site since the beginning. Ha!! Ha!! Ha!!)

  30. AbsentObserver says:

    In the past few days, I have been called names unlike anything I’ve ever been called before. Your childish name-calling and playground antics are precisely the reason I asked John to have a dicussion with me in private. Are you suggesting there would be something wrong if John and I were to sit together, face to face, in a coffee shop and talk without sharing our every word with the world? I know John personally as well. He is a fine man. I was and continue to be interested in participating in a dialogue with him. You, James, are nothing more than a school yard bully more focused on silly name calling and sticks-and-stones throwing than participating in a reasonable and respectful dialogue with us. It’s your choice. Do what you want to do. Can you just leave me alone in the process, please? Why I matter to you so much is beyond me. Don’t you have anything better to do with your time than compose rambling attacks on me?

  31. prima facie says:

    Oh, “ye” who wishes me to believe “ye” has never been called “names” before. Oh “ye” who has never ran into a so-called childish, schoolyard type bully before. Wouldn’t you like me to believe you to be so priviledged and sheltered. Are you setting up a “poor me”, “a bully is picking on me” dfence? LOL!!
    Yet, you sat with the “gang” (unofficially of course), at the “shed” every minute, every day for over four years and who know’s how many more years…ya-right…I believe you; By the way, how would you characterize/label that bunch….are you blind as well?

    Well come on down to the brickyard “baby” where reality meets the road. There are more than one of us peons looking for justice. The gloves are dropped….no more “kissy-kissy” let’s all get along, as we’re being “screwed” at the same time. I and others attempted to dialogue for years, decades..only to be screwed. Now it’s over and people like you, who were present for every minute of every day, want to dialogue….get to your clinician.
    Get use to it or as I said before, slither back under the log from where you came.
    “Situations highly influence/dictate behaviour”.

    In your case and with your type, I have no problem calling you a few harsh names once in awhile; you can label/characterize me as one thing and another person will label me as something else…big-fat-deal!!

    I am aware of my shortcomings, strengths and weaknesses.

    You, my dear dishonest “pukeass delicti”, who has waited four plus years to sit down and talk to John over a cup of coffee,….well, doesn’t that sound a little strange too. You know him, you know he is a fine man, then why have you waited for so long….call him up. As you know, he is not hard to contact.

    You know, “Absent Observer”, but really not “Absent”-but not officially “Absent or present”…or whatever,…anyway..I am really starting to re-assess my opinion relating to your education and intelligence.
    I think to myself, why, would such a priviledged, sheltered, articulate and obviously educated person continue to return to this “spot”, buried deep within Sylvia’s past blogs, to engage a perceived bully. Kinda sick, don’t you think? Did’t Mommy say to avoid and ignore so-called bullies?
    Returning to the same spot……I mean really.

    I mean, you aren’t going to influence me…

    As you continue to identify names, initials, traits and characteristics, I will list them beside my name….kinda like credentialling for the “upstairs people” like you.

    Sincerely,
    James a.k.a. “prima facie”, school yard, name calling, childish bully.

  32. John says:

    I think that the storm has passed and it is safe to come out again.

    In answering my questions Absent Observer I am almost certain on answers 1 through 5 that there was more that you wanted to say but felt shut down. IF that is the case feel free to open up more if you care to do so. IF not then how could you possibly make these following statements in other blogs?…….

    “It doesn’t give me great hope for the future if you people are passing along to your children and grandchildren such blanket cynicism.”

    “I know it’s much more convenient for you all to consistently vilify the commissioner and everyone who wasn’t listed as a victim or an alleged victim at that inquiry.”

    “Are you all really that jaded? If so, I’m sad for you all.”

    If you are agreeing that those mentioned and those close have that right to feel “jaded…..” then how could you disparage us for being that way?

    In question #6 maybe I should have been a little more clear..If you followed the inquiry as closely as you say you did then you are aware of my testimony. My one and only concern is JUSTICE within the realm that I was speaking of during my testimony. When something did not make sense to me I wrote those that should be concerned with seeing justice done, and was often stonewalled in my attempts. In your answer you were generic in terms, in my view my focus is, lets call it narrow for your sake, but that is all that I am left with.

    John Mac Donald

  33. AbsentObserver says:

    My comments about people being jaded and passing along such cynicism to their children and grandchildren were based in concerns a lot of people who followed the inquiry or were part of the inquiry or even those who were an unwilling party to the inquiry in any degree have absolutely nothing good to say about any aspect of the inquiry whatsoever. I think if you were to speak to each of the victims who took that stand, there are a few who would tell you they felt better after testifying than they’ve felt in years. For some victims, just the validation of being able to speak about their experiences in a forum where at least some of those listening believed them and supported them. I sat with one woman outside the inquiry who told me, as tears streamed down her face, how until the day she took the stand she felt like a piece of garbage, like nobody ever believed her stories, like she was worthless. She said after she testified, even after she was cross-examined and suggestions were made she’d exaggerated in terms of the abuse she’d suffered as a child, she felt almost reborn. I remember she turned her face up towards the sky and said, “I feel the sun. I haven’t felt the sun in a very long time.”
    Is that the sort of justice you’re talking about? Perhaps her abusers didn’t go to jail but for her that’s not what she was looking for. She was looking for validation and support and for people to believe her story. And, thanks to the inquiry, she got that.
    Believe me, there was a lot that happened both inside and outside that hearing room which I believe was unjust and manipulative and contrived. But I can’t sit here and agree with those who find fault and conspiracy within every single that happened in that room.
    For some people, John, there was justice. And yes. I was there for your testimony. And I have re-read your testimony in transcripts many times since. I believe it was testimony such as yours which served to form the commissioner’s opinion the church, law enforcement and the justice system failed many people many times and certainly could have done things a whole lot better.

  34. John says:

    Absent Observer………I am not here to pick apart your blogs and words, but you did write them. Once again, below are quotes from your blogs:

    (Post #9)…”I have spoken to many victims and alleged victims, as I’m sure you have as well. Some will tell you the inquiry was an ineffective, self-serving, three-ring circus. Others will tell you it did wonders for their healing and efforts to move forward in their lives.”

    (Post #33)…”I think if you were to speak to each of the victims who took that stand, there are a few who would tell you they felt better after testifying than they’ve felt in years.”

    (Post #33)…”I sat with one woman outside the inquiry who told me, as tears streamed down her face, how until the day she took the stand she felt like a piece of garbage, like nobody ever believed her stories, like she was worthless.”

    Notice in these posts that you drop from “many” in post #9 to a few, then to one in post #33.

    As for the woman that you sat with and who said “I feel the sun. I haven’t felt the sun in a very long time.”, I sincerely hope that you have followed this womans recovery as closely as my friends have followed mine. I KNOW where she was at that particular point in time. The second that I stepped off the stand at the Inquiry my whole world changed. Everything looked, sounded, felt, tasted and smelled different. Was the inquiry the catalyst for that change? I feel that I got to that point in SPITE of, not BECAUSE of the Inquiry and those involved in it.

    Some at the Inquiry did everything in their power to keep myself and others from testifying. Some at the Inquiry including commision council and the commisioner stopped me from addressing some of my concerns at the end of my testimony on point of procedure. IF you follow this site closely enough you will have read that I am still seeking justice, and will not stop. What happened in almost all of the cases in this city is wrong PERIOD.

    I hold out hope that the woman that you spoke with is still feeling the sunshine despite the cloudiest of days. It is possible. What happened to all victims and “alleged” victims has shaped our lives, but it does not need to be forever. Nuclear bombs were dropped into the core of our families and have completely devasted and destroyed everything and everyone around. To me the Inquiry saw and recognized the radio activity, but then walked away when they realized that the damgae was overwhelming. In Commisioner Glaude’s final report he gave a six month deadline for his reccomendations to be acted upon, that date is now a week old and there is no word from anyone as to IF those reccomendations are going to be acted on.

    I am putting this post up now though it may seem that I am a little scattered in my response. I want to keep this thread alive and open. There is so much more to talk about and expand on, that being your view of justice, my view of justice and your view as to what my view of what justice is.

    Hoping for a response that you are still here,

    John Mac Donald

  35. AbsentObserver says:

    We live in an imperfect world. And it’s a world in which we all wear our own pair of glasses. How you see the world is different from how I see the world. Does that mean we can never agree on what something looks like? No. Does it mean that if one of doesn’t see what the other sees, one of us is wrong? No. I had such faith and high hopes for that inquiry. I know I’ve talked about being there for the inquiry in its entirety … I was there for years before the inquiry was ever even talked about among groups like the Coalition for Action and Citizens for Community Renewal. I was there when the people in those groups marched together, arm in arm. Justice is, unfortunately for some, a long process. Sadly, for some, it never comes. I believe in my heart Dick Nadeau didn’t see any sort of justice. In fact, one of the hardest things for me to wrap my head around at the inquiry was the way the parties and the commission heard evidence and responded to evidence from witnesses who were either deceased or unable to attend for a variety of reasons. Do those folks feel they’ve been served any sort of justice? Not likely.
    All I can say, as I’ve said before, is it bothers me to know there are a lot of people in Cornwall and other towns and cities around this country and around this world who will analyze something like the Cornwall Public Inquiry and not find a single redemptive quality in it. And while I certainly believe there were a lot of lawyers in that room who were there for one reason and one reason only – to protect their clients at any cost – I believe there were many people – lawyers, staff members, observers – who had nothing but the best interests of the victims of abuse at heart from day one. There were protections put in place which you would never see in any other sort of judicial proceeding. One of the most underfunded programs in the province of Ontario is VWAP … the Victim/Witness Assistance Program. Speak to a victim of sexual abuse testifying in a provincial court room in this province and ask him if he would like the option of testifying in an in-camera hearing without the peering eyes and ears of Joe Public. Ask that victim if he would like to have access to counseling services, free of charge, both during and after the hearing. I’m pretty sure most victims of abuse who have to go to court to testify about or against an abuser wouldn’t mind access to either of those things. I know you have stood up and put your face and your name and your entire life on the record for several years. I can tell you there are a lot of people who admire you for that courage. But not everyone is that strong. In that regard, I believe the inquiry, at times and in certain cases, did as much as possible to protect a witness while still maintaining as public a hearing as possible. I know it wasn’t that way in the case of all witnesses … I’m not sure any of us will ever forget what Dave Silmser went through both on that witness stand and off of it in the days during and following his testimony. I know that when the commission opted to proceed with the rest of the cross-examination of his evidence in his absence, a lot of people threw up their hands and called the whole thing a circus. A farce. What I think is the commissioner had two choices: allow the cross-examination to go ahead with the assistance of documentary evidence or toss every word Dave said in the trash. I believe the commissioner made the right decision because he understood of keeping Dave’s in-chief testimony on the record. It was too important to toss out. Dave’s testimony spoke to the actions of law enforcement, the church and the justice system and his words needed to stay on the record of that inquiry.
    Justice. We all seek it. Some of us never find it. But that doesn’t mean it never happens.

  36. John says:

    Absent Observer……..as I said in a previos post, I would like to carry on a dialogue with a look at “justice”.

    Below are the definitions for the word justice……can you please tell me where that woman that you were speaking about sitting with, who felt the sunshine for the first time fits into any of the definitions below? You asked in that post……………”Is that my definition of justice” My question back to you is………Is that YOUR definition of justice?

    1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
    2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
    3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
    4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
    5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
    6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
    7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
    8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
    9. ( initial capital letter ) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
    —Idioms
    10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one’s misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
    11. do justice,
    a. to act or treat justly or fairly.
    b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
    c. to acquit in accordance with one’s abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.

    Will await your answer,

    John

  37. AbsentObserver says:

    John,

    I believe each person who has ever sought justice or who has ever willed justice for another person has to determine their own definition of the word and decide whether or not it’s been levied.
    I can’t tell you if the victim I spoke with feels justice was served in her case and I can’t say which one of your multitude of definitions would apply in her case. The point I was making was that perhaps, in her own way, that woman felt some sort of justice had been delivered in her case because of her experience at the inquiry. I don’t know if that’s the case. She is the only person who can answer that question. What I was asking you is whether YOU thought her experience at the inquiry fit into any of your definitions of justice.
    As I said, justice is something many of us seek. Some of us never feel it’s been delivered. Some of us do.
    Take Steve Parisien’s case. Do I believe the commission was justified in calling in the police to arrest and criminally charge him with obstruction of justice? No. Do I believe the judge in the case made the right decision by finding Steve did nothing wrong? Yes. Do you believe any justice was meted out in that case? I would say the decision of the judge falls under your seventh definition … “judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.”
    I know the questions you’ve asked and I’ve read the letters you’ve written and I am aware of at least some of the situations within which you are seeking justice. I had always admired your continuing efforts to get answers to those questions and I sincerely hope somewhere along the lines you get them to your satisfaction.
    Perhaps justice is like satiation. We can all be hungry, but it takes differing amounts of food to make each of us feel full.

  38. John says:

    So by your logic on Steve’s case….Does that mean that someone should charge the commisioner with malicious prosecution? Oh wait he insulated himself nicely by turning it over to the prosecution.

    Does that mean that someone should charge the Cornwall Police Service with malicious prosocution? Oh wait, they turned it over to Kingston Police.

    Does that mean Kingston Police should be charged with malicious prosecution? Oh wait, they turned it over to the Crown’s office.

    Does that mean that the Crown should be charged with malicious prosecution? Oh wait the Judge dismeissed the charges.

    You ask me IF justice has been meted out in Steve’s case. My question to you is……To who?

    Steve is still out about $20,000. The Judge was well within his right to award Steve costs. The Judge in the Leduc trial order costs of approximately $350,000. Me jaded?

    John

  39. John says:

    Sorry for the spelling mistakes in the last post………tired and angry!!!

  40. AbsentObserver says:

    First of all, law enforcement agencies do not prosecute people, so suggesting a police officer or a police force has maliciously prosecuted an individual has no basis in fact.
    Law enforcement agencies lay charges against an individual and it’s up to the Crown to put those charges in front of a judge. In Steve’s case, the only place to go if one would like to see a charge of malicious prosecution laid is the Cornwall Crown attorney’s office.
    I asked you if you felt any justice had been meted out in Steve’s case. It was a simple question. Do you believe any justice was achieved? By Steve? By his family? By his supporters? By the community? It may very well be a travesty of justice he had to go through the process to begin with, but can nothing positive at all be said about what happened in that court room? People hugged and cried and cheered when the judge handed down his decision. Steve had been vindicated, they said. In that case, the judge had seen and heard all of the evidence and ruled in Steve’s favour. Is that not some sort of justice?
    As for costs, you’re correct. The judge had the ability to award costs. Perhaps Steve’s lawyer should have asked for costs upon hearing the verdict. The judgment awarding costs to Jacques Leduc was overturned on appeal by the Crown.

  41. John says:

    Absent Observer I was being sarcastic when I wrote that blog. What I was trying to show is that there were 5 levels that Steve’s information went through before it got into the hands of the Judge who finally made the, as you put it, Right decision. The whole mess could have stopped at the first level by JUSTICE Normand Glaude asking one very simple question to Steve.

    John

  42. AbsentObserver says:

    You’re suggesting I “put it” that the judge made the right decision in Steve’s case. Do you not agree with that statement? I would ask you to answer one question … In your opinion, was any justice meted out in Steve’s case and, if so, to whom and in what way?
    I was there the day Albert Roy testified about Steve calling … I was there when Donna Roy testified about it … I spoke with Steve not long after the commissioner said he was handing the matter over to outside authorities. (I know, I know. He said ‘proper authorities’ … and I know some folks can get hung up on a single word or turn of phrase, regardless of context.) Yes, of course, the entire thing should have been handled differently from the get-go. I think if you were to sit down with the commissioner and ask him about the mistakes he made along the way (because, you know, we all mistakes, even judges and lawyers and priests and teachers and foster parents and victims and alleged victims and the fifth cousin of a Crown attorney, twice removed) … the commissioner might say the Steve Parisien matter was on the list.
    Your suggestion the entire thing could have been stopped if the commissioner had asked Steve one simple question sounds good, but it’s not reality. The fact is the hearings were conducted in accordance with traditional judicial proceedings. The commissioner would have had to stop the inquiry, re-examine Donna and Albert Roy and then examine Steve. If it happened at the inquiry, every single party would have been provided an opportunity to cross-examine each witness in relation to the incident. Each party might have asked for some time to review the testimony of the Roys in preparation and time to review case law in relation to obstruction of justice allegations and, with the way things were going at the time, that could have put the brakes on the inquiry for several days, if not longer. I’m not justifying the commissioner’s decision to send the matter to an outside authority … I’m just saying I can understand and recognize a possible train of thought in regards to the matter.

  43. John says:

    Absent Observer, I know that my mind is made up on my stand. Below is your post #6, I think that it is time that you made up yours…….

    “One of the most ridiculous things to happen in relation to the Cornwall Public Inquiry was the charging and trial of Steve Parisien. Even the gentleman who spoke about the telephone conversation during testimony, Albert Roy, later said he thought it was a travesty of justice to have Parisien charged and tried. The judge in Steve’s trial seemed to repeatedly shake his head as to why this charge of obstruction of justice had been laid in the first place and couldn’t seem to figure out for the life of him why it was brought before him. Although the Crown tried to put evidence of obstruction before the court, it was obvious to anyone who sat in that courtroom during that trial even some of the Crown attorneys seemed perplexed as to what they were doing in that room. Too bad there wasn’t a side-by-side analysis done by any members of the media as to what happened when an allegation of historical child sexual abuse was leveled against a priest and what happened when an allegation of obstruction of justice was made against Steve. Were any priests or teachers or lawyers handcuffed in their own driveways and tossed in the back of a police car? Were any of them held in custody for any period of time? Were any of them forced to hire a lawyer and sit through a trial that even the judge knew was bogus? Steve deserves not only to be compensated for any money he either paid to defend himself (which he was successful at and was found to have done nothing wrong) … he deserves a public apology from the Attorney General and, in particular, Commissioner Normand Glaude, for one of the most head-scratching events to happen during the course of the inquiry. The only bigger farce was the charging and jailing of Perry Dunlop … an act which should cause the entire justice and law enforcement community in this province and throughout this country to collectively hang their heads in shame.”

  44. AbsentObserver says:

    John,

    I have repeatedly said Steve should never have been charged and that the commissioner should have dealt with it himself. Are you suggesting I’ve wavered on those points?
    And why won’t you answer my question? Do you think any justice at all was meted out in Steve’s case?

    Also, you need not copy and paste back to me the things I write. I can go back and read them myself. Just tell me which post to which you are referring and we can go from there.

    I think we’ve established our respective definitions of justice and whether we think it’s ever been achieved and in what cases.

    Anything else you’d like to talk about?

    A.O.

  45. John says:

    Do I think any justice was handed out in Steve’s case. No one, and I mean NO ONE can ever get to me accept that a complete and total injustice such as what Steve was put through can EVER be turned into JUSTICE by Steve walking away from court with the charges dismissed. The charges should never have been brought forward PERIOD.

    John

  46. John says:

    A.O…..You ask me not to copy your posts back on here for you to read, or is for others not to read. I have just gone through every single blog that you have written, I could not find in one single post where you say that the commissioner should have dealt with Steve’s situation. Maybe for ALL of us, just this once, you can copy your post where you say just that. I will be waiting.

    John

  47. AbsentObserver says:

    I may never have written this exact phrase … “The commissioner should have dealt with Steve’s situation” … but I have always put forth my opinion that it was incorrectly handled and should have been done differently from the start. Steve should never have been arrested and charged and put on trial. But he was. And none of us can go back and make that not have happened.
    The points I have been trying to make in my posts is that the inquiry was imperfect and there were many things which should have been done differently. At the same time, I will continue to hold a belief that some things at the inquiry were done right.
    John, you posted recently that nothing would make you change your mind in regards to your opinion about what happened to Steve. The same goes for me.
    Now … as I said before … is there something else you’d like to discuss? I think we’ve both established our positions well on this topic.

    A.O.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *